The question Did dragons exist? eventually got closed as not being a very scientific question.

I thought it might be interesting to test whether it was rescuable by posing a different version https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7819/is-there-any-known-basis-for-the-widely-spread-myths-of-creatures-like-dragons but this is also closed on the grounds that it is really a question about belief and why people believe things, which is off topic.

I was really angling towards posing a question that would allow some hard evidence to be assessed such as the hyportheis in this book: The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times

I could pose what I think is a perfectly good Skeptics question by referencing the book and asking whether the hypothesis is reasonable. But that feels like putting the answer in the question which wouldn't make such a good question.

It is a dilemma. Reopen the why did people believe in them question with a focus on hard evidence or pose a unsatisfactory question about the idea that ancient fossils fed the early myths?

2 Answers 2


I've reopened the original Dragon question after finding very strong notability: Young Earth Creationists do assert that Dragons existed. They are Bible literalists.

So since we allowed other YEC questions, this should be allowed too.

Note: Can someone from the community can step up a provide a great reference answer?


I didn't close the "Did dragons exist?" question, but I was sorely tempted. My motivation was NOT that it wasn't scientific. (It does seem to be a question that can be answered in the realms of science.)

My concern was that there was nobody who notably believed in the claim. I was eventually persuaded (by Sklivvz, and by some Googling) that there are some fantasists who believe (or at least pretend to).

That was enough to hold me back from closing it (although I wasn't happy with the answers it was garnering. Pointing at dinosaur bones didn't seem to answer the question.)

It did make me ponder our "notability" criteria. Is there ever a point where the proponents of a point of view are so clearly either (a) children, (b) trolls or (c) delusional that we consider their views non-notable? A very subjective call.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .